Semisane

My hunting bullet of choice is the 300 grain Speer Gold Dot Hollow Point. I'm shooting it over 120 grains of Triple 7 FFG with
an average velocity of around 1800 fps (chrono 15 ft. from muzzle). Sighted in an inch and a half high at 100 yards, I'm dead
on at 125 yards and two and a half inches low at 150. The longest possible shot on the food plots I hunt is 170 yards. Even
if I have to shoot to the very back of that plot, my POI will be only six inches below point of aim - just aim at the spine.

The first chart below shows the 250 grain Gold Dot at 1900 fps. The second chart shows the 300 grain Gold Dotat 1800 fps.

Notice that the lighter bullet does not gain much in trajectory, while the heavier oneyields a LOT more energy.

cayugad

I agree, I like a larger bullet. They just seem to do the job for me.

spaniel

The only thing I'd like to see is what that would look like if you drove the 250gr bullet faster. Your 300gr/120gr powder example almost perfectly matches what I get out of my gun, but a 250gr bullet with that powder charge would run closer to 2100 fps I think though I haven't chrono'd a 250 lately.

In my gun, 200gr bullet 110gr powder = 2100 fps and 300gr bullet 110gr powder = 1800+ fps. So I think you're stacking the deck a little

I've had great luck with 200gr but the 300gr sure makes a SMACK when it knocks them over!

edited to add - within the range you mention (<170 yds) it'll still be a relatively small drop in distance. But depending on the bullets being compared it can be huge further out, notice the drop off the cliff evident toward the bottom of your charts.

dmurphy317

Spaniel,

I typically see around 100 to 125fps difference using the same powder load for the 250 and 300 SW's so I think his comparison is about right. Also when using his numbers in my ballistic calculator I show that at 300 yards the 250 drops 4 inches further than the 300 indicating the 300 shoots flatter at extended range than the 250. This is due to the higher BC which allows the bullet to maintain velocity better than the 250. You would have to push the 250 to about 2000fps to match the drop at 300 yards of the 300gr bullet. The 300 will still have over 200fp energy advantageat 300 yards even pushing the 250 at 2000fps.

Theres not enough trajectory difference between the two to make up for the energy gain you get from the heavier bullet to justify the lighter one in my opinion. That is why I also prefer the heavier bullets. I do like the 200SW though because it has a high BC and retains energy much better than the 250.

Semisane

Hey Spaniel, I can't get that kind of velocity with a 250 grain bulletout of my gun. That's why I used the 1900 fps figure. Anyway, here are the figures for the 250 grainerat 2000 and 2100 fps. Even with the 250 grainer at 2100 fps, the 300still has a pretty goodenergy advantage.Solong as the the same 125 yard zero is usedthe 250 has very little trajectory advantage - only about an inch at 175 yards. However, if the sight in zerois changed from 125 yards to 150 yards, the 250 has a decent trajectory advantage. It would be 2.5" high at 100, 1.75" high at 125, 0 at 150, 2.75" low at 175, and a tad over 6.5"low at 200. But I can't get that speed and I don't shoot at 200, so I'll go with the energy advantage of the 300.

lemoyne

I believe Spaniel was talking about the 50/40 set up with the 200gr bullet and I have to agree where animals like deer, boarand bear are concerned [all though I have heard of larger game being taken with them I have not had that oppertunity ] actually the SD of the 200gr 40 cal is about as good as the 300gr and to all practical purpose and the BC is better. And since I do my own pressure testing and use the new powder I get 2300 fps which is a bit more than I can get with the 250gr or 300gr with anywhere near the pressure I stop at. I do not usually say much about it because I am afraid some people might try my loads in one of them cheap guns and end up with the breach Plug acting loke a bullet in the wrong direction. Lee

Semisane

Hey Lee, what 200 grain bullet are you shooting with your hot loads?

spaniel

Semisane,

Thank you for going to all the work to post the pics in response to my ignorant question (ignorant because I have not chrono'd a 250 lately so I was guessing based on past experience). I did not mean to imply that I thought it would make a world of difference.

I think the discussion between these particular 250 and 300 bullets and deciding between the 200 .40cal SW and 300 .45cal SW are two very different arguments and I have a different position on the two.

Let's assume your main concern is drop for long range shots (we could argue that it should really be wind drift since drop is 100% predictable but that's another discussion). Draw the comparison to centerfire. Typically, the argument for long range shooting is that you should always use the heaviest bullet you can shoot to maximize your BC -- it reduces wind drift and while you may drop more up-front at extended ranges you will drop less due to better retained velocity. Edited to add: With a centerfire, however, you are always dealing with a fixed caliber so you are really only choosing a heavier bullet in the same caliber. The exception is the "accelerator" loads that were (are?) marketed that were saboted and shot .223 bullets from a .30-06 for varminting. Which draws a NICE analogy to MLing.

This is why I say the 250 vs 300 and 200 vs 300 are two different arguments. 300gr bullets are usually .45 cal and 250s are .44 or .45, right? Basically the same caliber. To extend the example from centerfire above, even though you give up a modest amount of velocity the 300 should be better. Now the 200gr bullet is significantly smaller, .40, so it has an increased sectional density and can have a better BC even at a lighter weight. Since it's in a different caliber class than the 300 you can't draw a direct comparison and would have to look directly at the ballistics to make a decision.

So I looked up the BCs for the three SW bullets. There are numerous different sources and who knows who is correct...so I took them all from 1 source (chuckhawks as I do not want to promote the individual who wrote the article!):
200gr .40cal - .211 (pretty close to what I see with it out of my gun)
250gr .45cal - .207
300gr .45cal - .249

Then I ran them through the calculator with a 100yd zero at the following velocities:
200gr -2100 fps - This is my load
250gr -1900 fps - From this thread
300gr -1800 fps - From this thread

Here is the long range output

Drops:
200gr 250gr 300gr
300 yd36.4in 46.5in 47.3in
400 yd 88in 109.3in 108.5in

So you can see here that the increased BC of the 300gr makes up for the decreased velocity compared to the 250gr; it is just as flat and hits harder. But the 200gr beat it by a SUBSTANTIAL margin on drop.

Wind drift 10mph:

200gr 250gr 300gr
300 yd 26.1in 29.5in 25.3in
400 yd 48.6in 53.2in 45.5in

Again, the 250gr is inferior to the 300gr as we would expect. The 300gr beats the 250gr at all but closer ranges where the difference is small and doesn't matter anyway! The 300 also has a small advantage in wind drift over the 200gr here.

So you can see my decision that I made several years ago. At that time I did not even know about the 300 gr and the 200 was the clear winner over the 250. I have always wanted to test the 300 but not had time, and given these numbers just a few inches advantage in wind drift to the 300 did not make up for the 20 inches in drop at 400 or the increased recoil that would be generated. I'd have to drive the 300 to max charges (and have it be accurate there).

But here's the catch:

Energy:
200gr 300gr
300 yd 637849
400 yd481688

Now I did have a good success at 338 yds with the 200gr bullet but, as much as I like to weigh experience over numbers I do have to start doubting performance when evergy numbers get down around 500 fl-lbs. And a 300 certainly does smack them harder at any range, no doubt about it. This is why I wish there was a heavier .40cal bullet that would stabilize in my ML. I wish the heavier.40cal DC's (240, 260) shot well in my gun but they do not.

Semisane

Good analysis Spaniel. If I had a hunting situation where I could shoot those kind of distances I would have to play around with some of those 200's on the range to see if I was up to the challange of shooting that far.Would probably have to invest is a tatical scope though.In my situation (no shots even possible beyond 175 yards) the 300's make sense.

spaniel

Agreed.